Butler citizen. [volume] (Butler, Pa.) 1877-1922, 1887-04-15
Judge AgneW's Reply.


published in the CITIZEN letter ad-
dressed by Judge Agnew to meet
ing of his fellow-citizens held at
Beaver Falls, Pa. This letter was
regarded as very important and able
one on the license question, Coming
from the author of the oft-misquoted
"Schlaudecker case" we conceived
that be had very satisfactorily shown
that the judicial discretion spoken OF
in that case, to be used by the Courts
in the granting of licenses, was
very different one from the duties OF
the courts under the law of 1867,
where the number and character OF
the petitioners for and remonstrants
against license were mainly to be
considered, as more recently defined
by the Supreme Court in the Reed
case. But the Beaver argus and
Radical undertook to criticise the let
ter and the following is Judge Ag-
news reply to that criticism. We
copy his reply as written for the Ro-
chester (Pa.) Daily argus, and as
found in the Beaver Falls Daily Ir1-
bune, of April 8. 1t does seem to US
that in this reply Judge Agnew
leaves no ground for any court to
stand upon that grants licenses over
the heads of majority of the people
of place interested, as expressed in
their remonstrances to the court. We
invite a careful reading of what he
SAYS, as it covers all points that just
now happen to be discussed in our
community
THE LIQUOR QUESTION.
Mr. EDITOR Your kiEd editorial
on nv letter to the Beaver Falls
meeting is quite flattering. II is also
pleasant to see the versatility with
which you have exchanged the edito-
rial tripod for the judicial robe. Your
remarkable similarity Of style as edl-
torial Judge and editorial reporter
would almost induce us to suppose
that the editor and the judge had ex-
changed places, only we know that
the editor would not suffer, and the
Judge would not descend, to write un-
der cover
Now, as you have taken up the
role of a judicial critic, judicial fair
ness admits of comment on the
criticism. The first is that you have
failed in judicial discrimination. If
one side is wrong it does not follow
that the other is right. Both may be
wrong. or partially right and partial
ly wrong. Thus, if Mr.. Stranahan
contended that the court must look
solely at the necessity for selling IL
ouors, and not the necessity of the
hotel, be is wrong The court must
look at both, but if the evil Of selling
intoxicating drinks at that hotel over
balances the necessity for the hotel as
such, the act of 1867 requires the IL
cense to be refused So Judge Wick
ham is clearly wrong if be looks
wholly at the necessity OF the hotel,
and disregards the greater evils OF
selling intoxicating drinks there, as
shown by the evidence of remonstran-
ces under the act of 1867. The Su-
preme Court says that the act "pre-
scribes the method by which the me-
cessity shall be ascartained.'
Next, you have omitted entirely to
notice that Schlaudecker's license. as
proved by the record, was refused on
other evidence, and not on the evil
dence of remonstrances, and therefore
that case is no authority for granting
a license against the weight of the re-
monstrances, under the act of 1867.
A blundering lawyer may confound
cases, but a good judge never does.
So you do what a fair minded law
yer or Judge never does. viz: you ap-
ply the language of my opinion in
SchlaGdecker's case to another who'll
lv different from the one | was con-
sidering. 1t is not judicial, indeed
it is not fair, to distort language to
meet a different question.
You also err in criticising my state
ment that the act of 1867 still regards
the necessity Of the hotel as an ele-
ment of decision You ought to have
gone further and said that | regard
both elements-tbe necessity of the
hotel, and the evil and injury of sell
ing intoxicating drinks in that hotel
as essential to just decision; and if,
in weighing those, the evils OF the
latter oyer-balance the necessity for
the former, the act of 1867 (Which,
the Supreme Court says, prescribes
the rule of determination) requires
the license to be refused.
Now, as q judge, you ought to have
noticed that the Act OF 1861 says
nothing about the other evidence con-
tanned iu former laws, but on the con-
trary puts the decision Of the court
wholly on the petitions for and remon-
strances against the application.
Suppose we read the first section of
the act of 1867, viz: THAT when an
application is made to any court OF
Quarter Sessions for license to sell in
toxicating drinks, it shall be lawful
for said court to hear petitions in ad-
dition to that of the applicant in favor
Of, and remonstraDces against the ap-
plication for such license, and in all
cases to refuse the same, whenever,
in be opinion of the court, having
due re gard for the number and char
acter of the petitioners for and against
such application, such license is not
necessary ior the accommodation of
tie public and entertainment OF stran-
gers and travellers"